A challenge for Congress

As the U.S. Senate considers President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court, the words “originalism” and “strict constructionist” are already being bandied about. Conservatives hailing Judge Gorsuch seek to portray him as a jurist who won’t base decisions on personal or political views, but faithfully follow the Constitution as its framers intended.

Yet the president’s own words should give the Senate pause. It was Mr. Trump who, during last year’s campaign, declared that if he were to appoint justices, Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision affirming a woman’s right to an abortion, would be overturned “automatically.”

No matter how you feel about abortion, that statement should chill all Americans, even, yes, those who call themselves originalists. First and foremost, the Constitution set up a republic based on three independent, co-equal branches of government. For Mr. Trump to so boldly predict how his judicial appointees would rule utterly usurps that framework. It rejects the notion that justices should be politically neutral referees on the law, and relegates them to tools of whatever political party is in power.

This should be a sobering moment, then, for Republicans heady with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. They might reflect on those checks and balances that the framers put in place.

On the judiciary, senators need to vet Judge Gorsuch all the more cautiously because he was nominated by a president who effectively declared that he would shape the court to do his bidding. That’s troubling no matter how much in sync they and Mr. Trump might be on some issues.

The Constitution requires the Senate to be more than a rubber stamp for the president, on not only judicial nominations but cabinet picks as well. In coming days, for example, senators will consider whether to confirm an utterly unqualified education secretary and an attorney general with a checkered past on civil rights. How would Republicans have reacted if a Democrat had put forth such choices?

And where is Republican concern on the intelligence community’s findings of Russian interference in the election? On Mr. Trump’s possible violations of the emoluments clause? On his possibly unconstitutional executive order banning refugees and travel from some Muslim nations – but not those in which he does business? On other conflicts of interest that may be hidden in his opaque finances? These are not mere partisan concerns. They go to the heart of Congress’ role as a check on executive power.

Whose goals are foremost in Republican lawmakers’ minds these days? Mr. Trump’s? Their own? Their party’s? Or the nation’s?

What, in short, are they supporting and defending – the Constitution, or their personal and political interests? A true “originalist” would insist on the former, without hesitation.